cobran20

Debunking The Man-Made Global Warming Myth Consensus

458 posts in this topic

49 minutes ago, staringclown said:

 

I read every article you post cobran - your lack of understanding amuses me. :P

Does it matter if they are sinking or not if they are becoming uninhabitable due to sea level rises? The fact is that _some_ islands aren't "sinking" due to the coral that formed them being thrown up by the sea level rises that are swamping them. Whoopee! We're f*cked but were not f*cked for the reason stated. Rather another reason uncovered by - you guessed it - scientists.

 

Other islands have gone completely.

 

Glad the money being wasted amuses you. So how are those predictions coming along made by your gurus. Let's take rising sea levels. This is all new, is it?

Also please tell me how events like this, this & this as examples are consistent with the globull warming theory? Perhaps we can go local and you can explain how the current drought is consistent with globull warming theory, since an increase in heat would increase sea evaporation leading to torrential rains like in tropical areas. Somehow such theory is failing to predict the actual climate, but effects low solar sunspots seem to be spot on. Is this why globull warming was renamed 'climate change', since climate never changed before?

But your massive understanding needs to be demonstrated. So why not make predictions on this thread that we can record & measure? You can even put your current gurus' predictions and we can measure actual vs forecast. Please don't quote things that can take decades to measure as that is just insulting everybody's intelligence since any moron can say that as everybody will be dead by then. Keep it to the next 10 years.

Your specific predictions will be matched against this one from Armstrong, which I expect we will know the answer within 5 years:

Quote

... This downturn in global cooling will spark a rise in food prices on the horizon. ...

 

Edited by cobran20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy to oblige in the prediction stakes. 

Firstly - The number of temperature records broken globally will be greater on the up side than down. To clarify, in a steady state climate one could expect that record cold temperatures would be roughly equal to record high temperatures broken. My prediction is that there will be more record high temperatures broken than cold. Let me know if this prediction requires further clarification.

As a bonus prediction overall global temperatures will increase. We may need to agree on a standard measure for this metric. But once agreed it will be locked in. No prevarication will be permitted on either side.

Second prediction is that global CO2 levels will rise over the next five years

Third is that sea level rises will continue on at least the same trajectory as they are currently tracking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, staringclown said:

Happy to oblige in the prediction stakes. 

Firstly - The number of temperature records broken globally will be greater on the up side than down. To clarify, in a steady state climate one could expect that record cold temperatures would be roughly equal to record high temperatures broken. My prediction is that there will be more record high temperatures broken than cold. Let me know if this prediction requires further clarification.

As a bonus prediction overall global temperatures will increase. We may need to agree on a standard measure for this metric. But once agreed it will be locked in. No prevarication will be permitted on either side.

Second prediction is that global CO2 levels will rise over the next five years

Third is that sea level rises will continue on at least the same trajectory as they are currently tracking.

Perfect. The first prediction of your is fairly simple to measure. The metrics for the other one are questionable to ascertain what is not normal fluctuations.

Edited by cobran20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, cobran20 said:

Perfect. The first prediction of your is fairly simple to measure. The metrics for the other one are questionable to ascertain what is not normal fluctuations.

How about the NASA site. They measure all three here

The ratio of hot temperature records broken compared to cold temperature records broken is difficult to find for the entire globe. There are US measures here. I'll try and track down a source for the globe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, staringclown said:

How about the NASA site. They measure all three here

The ratio of hot temperature records broken compared to cold temperature records broken is difficult to find for the entire globe. There are US measures here. I'll try and track down a source for the globe.

 

and what are you going to use to measure what is directly attributable to man made activity and not part of a cycle that has been going on for millenia? For example, NASA stating that the rise in CO2 during 2015-16 was cause by the El Nino effect. After all we want clear, irrefutable evidence of what is man made for which $squillions have been spent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cobran20 said:

and what are you going to use to measure what is directly attributable to man made activity and not part of a cycle that has been going on for millenia? For example, NASA stating that the rise in CO2 during 2015-16 was cause by the El Nino effect. After all we want clear, irrefutable evidence of what is man made for which $squillions have been spent.

On the contrary, my predictions do not stipulate whether the attribution is anthropogenic or not. You are prevaricating. There are multiple forcings and I have never claimed otherwise.

As for natural variation, if sun spots are responsible for warming then the 11 year solar maxim cycle should be reflected by a global cyclic temperature cycle. The system should remain steady state over the 11 year cycle if sun spots are solely responsible for the warming. 

If it's volcanic eruptions (that should cause a cooling effect) then significant eruptions will force global temps down for the period that the particulates from the eruption remain in the atmosphere. Once the particulates have dispersed temperatures should rise again. The system should remain in steady state post eruption.

If x other factor is responsible then whenever that effect has subsided then the temperatures should return to a steady state. 

Once you have eliminated _every_ other source of natural variation and the trend is still upward then you need to consider that in the absence of any other logical reason for the rise that CO2 and anthropogenic forcings are the only thing left to explain the rises. Occams razor withstanding.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, staringclown said:

On the contrary, my predictions do not stipulate whether the attribution is anthropogenic or not. You are prevaricating. There are multiple forcings and I have never claimed otherwise.

As for natural variation, if sun spots are responsible for warming then the 11 year solar maxim cycle should be reflected by a global cyclic temperature cycle. The system should remain steady state over the 11 year cycle if sun spots are solely responsible for the warming. 

If it's volcanic eruptions (that should cause a cooling effect) then significant eruptions will force global temps down for the period that the particulates from the eruption remain in the atmosphere. Once the particulates have dispersed temperatures should rise again. The system should remain in steady state post eruption.

If x other factor is responsible then whenever that effect has subsided then the temperatures should return to a steady state. 

Once you have eliminated _every_ other source of natural variation and the trend is still upward then you need to consider that in the absence of any other logical reason for the rise that CO2 and anthropogenic forcings are the only thing left to explain the rises. Occams razor withstanding.

 

Not prevaricating at all. Governments have spent $squillions because we have been told by the scientific community that we're being subjected to global warming caused by human actions. Here is a statement from NASA:

Quote

...Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position....

So are you now stating that you're not agreeing with the above statement and allow for the fact that it is part of a natural cycle (where temps go up & down)? If so, then can you tell us whether you agree of the $squillions spent on a non-confirmed theory? It then follows as to whether you agree that governments where gullible to fall for the statements made by charlatans like Gore & Flannery?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2018 at 9:28 PM, staringclown said:

Happy to oblige in the prediction stakes. 

Firstly - The number of temperature records broken globally will be greater on the up side than down. To clarify, in a steady state climate one could expect that record cold temperatures would be roughly equal to record high temperatures broken. My prediction is that there will be more record high temperatures broken than cold. Let me know if this prediction requires further clarification.

Shall we pin this article to your first prediction? It is after all supposedly summer there since the solstice is not until next week:

Say it ain’t snow! Northern Alberta wakes up to winter weather

Quote

...a cool air mass will invade much of Alberta this week, “bringing with it weather that is decidedly more like winter than summer.”

That statement was later upgraded to a snowfall warning for parts of northern Alberta...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2018 at 8:02 PM, cobran20 said:

Your specific predictions will be matched against this one from Armstrong, which I expect we will know the answer within 5 years:

Quote

... This downturn in global cooling will spark a rise in food prices on the horizon. ...

 

Shall we pin this article to Armstrong's prediction?

NSW hit with shocker drought crop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, cobran20 said:

Not prevaricating at all. Governments have spent $squillions because we have been told by the scientific community that we're being subjected to global warming caused by human actions. Here is a statement from NASA:

So are you now stating that you're not agreeing with the above statement and allow for the fact that it is part of a natural cycle (where temps go up & down)? If so, then can you tell us whether you agree of the $squillions spent on a non-confirmed theory? It then follows as to whether you agree that governments where gullible to fall for the statements made by charlatans like Gore & Flannery?

You misunderstand me. What I said was that once you account for warming from natural sources the rest is man made.

E.g. Sunspots are cyclical over 11 years. The influence sun spots have doesn't explain long term warming trend. 

My predictions have nothing to do with the amount of money spent. Although I do have another prediction. The next Labor government will adopt the NEG policy dumped by the libs. And all they will need to argue is that this was Liberal policy. 

I'm happy to pin the predictions anywhere you desire. But not tonight after beerage. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, staringclown said:

You misunderstand me. What I said was that once you account for warming from natural sources the rest is man made.

E.g. Sunspots are cyclical over 11 years. The influence sun spots have doesn't explain long term warming trend. 

My predictions have nothing to do with the amount of money spent. Although I do have another prediction. The next Labor government will adopt the NEG policy dumped by the libs. And all they will need to argue is that this was Liberal policy. 

I'm happy to pin the predictions anywhere you desire. But not tonight after beerage. :wacko:

I'd also question using NASA's data as a reliable source of measurement. Here are two articles (link1, link2) that clearly question the data. Since we're talking < 1 degree changes, then accuracy would be paramount.

The Armstrong prediction that I expect will occur within 5 years can be tested easily & irrefutably by looking at a grains index where the prices are calculated at the end of each trading day and never change or require subsequent adjustment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, cobran20 said:

I'd also question using NASA's data as a reliable source of measurement. Here are two articles (link1, link2) that clearly question the data. Since we're talking < 1 degree changes, then accuracy would be paramount.

The Armstrong prediction that I expect will occur within 5 years can be tested easily & irrefutably by looking at a grains index where the prices are calculated at the end of each trading day and never change or require subsequent adjustment. 

NASA provide confidence intervals for their measurements. The 95% confidence interval for GISS data is 0.05 degrees Celsius. That is an accurate a measure as you will get. 

I also proposed using the ratio of warm temperature records broken to cool temperatures broken. Same weather stations using the raw data.

Here's an indication on the accuracy of news articles on climate change

I did enjoy the criticism CRU, NOAA and GISS all use the same source of data. Weather stations? :wacko:

WRT Armstrong's grain index, you're going to have to explain to me how a grains index can be used as a surrogate measure for global temperature?

Why use a surrogate measure for something which is clearly measurable in its own right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, staringclown said:

NASA provide confidence intervals for their measurements. The 95% confidence interval for GISS data is 0.05 degrees Celsius. That is an accurate a measure as you will get. 

I also proposed using the ratio of warm temperature records broken to cool temperatures broken. Same weather stations using the raw data.

Here's an indication on the accuracy of news articles on climate change

I did enjoy the criticism CRU, NOAA and GISS all use the same source of data. Weather stations? :wacko:

WRT Armstrong's grain index, you're going to have to explain to me how a grains index can be used as a surrogate measure for global temperature?

Why use a surrogate measure for something which is clearly measurable in its own right?

The grains index will be used to confirm the drop in prices. It will be caused by a drought induced by the low sunspots, which is what is already afflicting Australia (currently the east coast and then the west coast). It will get worse for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, staringclown said:

My predictions have nothing to do with the amount of money spent. Although I do have another prediction. The next Labor government will adopt the NEG policy dumped by the libs. And all they will need to argue is that this was Liberal policy. 

That would not surprise me. Turnbull turned out to be Labor Lite after all. But if they introduce the NEG and force an increase in renewables, it will be interesting to see what electricity prices do and reliability for that matter. Here is a fine example of such policy:

Diesel generators being installed on Mornington Peninsula to bolster energy supplies

So instead of removing carbon restrictions on building cost efficient, reliable, fossil based electricity generating plants,
they use unreliable renewables which need to be backed up by much more expensive to run and polluting diesel generators!

It takes a certain mentality to suggest this is an improvement.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, staringclown said:

NASA provide confidence intervals for their measurements. The 95% confidence interval for GISS data is 0.05 degrees Celsius. That is an accurate a measure as you will get. 

I also proposed using the ratio of warm temperature records broken to cool temperatures broken. Same weather stations using the raw data.

Here's an indication on the accuracy of news articles on climate change

I did enjoy the criticism CRU, NOAA and GISS all use the same source of data. Weather stations? :wacko:

WRT Armstrong's grain index, you're going to have to explain to me how a grains index can be used as a surrogate measure for global temperature?

Why use a surrogate measure for something which is clearly measurable in its own right?

Yes, the accuracy and bias of news articles on climate change and who should be blamed is an eye opener. What does & does not get published in the mainstream media can be bewildereing:

https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/04/24/did_you_know_the_greatest_two-year_global_cooling_event_just_took_place_103243.html

and this little gem from the Washington Post/Bezos:

Another hurricane is about to batter our coast. Trump is complicit

Florence has even been downgraded from category 5 to 1! I hope Trump gets his legal team working on it.

As to the accuracy of temperatures on a global basis ... mmm!

And how much change are we presumably talking about?:

Quote

Western Australia's (WA) climate has changed over the last century, particularly over the last 50 years. Average temperature has risen about 1°C

That is a real, massive sweltering change, that can only be man made and never part of an ongoing cycle! :rolleyes:

and as to the unanimous opinion by scientists:

 

1.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2018 at 8:02 PM, cobran20 said:

Your specific predictions will be matched against this one from Armstrong, which I expect we will know the answer within 5 years:

Quote

... This downturn in global cooling will spark a rise in food prices on the horizon. ...

Mobs of kangaroos take to streets of Australia's capital over food shortages

Quote

... Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Parks and Conservation Service Director Daniel Iglesias told CNN...

"Canberra is experiencing a perfect storm of hardship for its kangaroos. New records have been set in Canberra for very cold, frosty nights this winter. This, coupled with very dry conditions with very little rain at all in June and July, means there is very little food for kangaroos, " Iglesias said...

low sunspots = drought & cold!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd think they would be burning more coal & gas to keep warm! :P

Temperatures plunge up to 10 degrees below average across Australia’s south

Quote

The mercury has plummeted up to 10 degrees below average across southern Australia as a strong front moved across the region.

Frost formed in all of the southern states and was severe in some areas this morning, with temperatures dipping five-to-10 degrees below average.

Walpeup in the Victorian Mallee had its coldest September morning in 23 years and coldest morning this late in the year in more than 50 years of records.

A 24-year-old record for this time of the year was shattered in Victoria's Hunters Hill, where temperatures hit an icy -2.6 degrees.

A 20-year-old record was also broken in Western Australia's Newdegate – -2.9 degrees.

South Australia's Clare reached -1.1 degrees, putting an end to a 16-year-old record...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2018 at 8:55 AM, cobran20 said:

The grains index will be used to confirm the drop in prices. It will be caused by a drought induced by the low sunspots, which is what is already afflicting Australia (currently the east coast and then the west coast). It will get worse for years.

Sorry, I had a brain snap in the above reply, I meant the commodity prices will rise, not drop as a result of the drought and cold temperatures cause by the Solar minimum.

Frost and freezing temperatures cause damages Wheatbelt grain crop

Quote

BELOW freezing temperatures across the Wheatbelt overnight have caused frost damage in crops, disappointing farmers and likely wiping hundreds of thousands of tonnes from the State’s forecast bumper harvest...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one from August

link

Quote

... Over in Victoria, Mount Buller dropped to -7.9C, while Falls Creek hit -9.6C — its coldest August morning on record since 1974....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You two are funny. I am deliberately being mean here so neither party can claim I am biased.

Cobran wants to use global warming to show that politicians / scientists / anyone claiming to know better than him are corrupt arseholes beneath him.

Clown wants to use global warming to show that people with beliefs that can't be swayed by his better argument are idiots beneath him.

The actual argument, to me, seems to be about how we progress society. If they were sci fi readers Cobran I am guessing would be an Asimov/Heinlein fan and Clown would be a charles stross fan (but secretly prefer Rajaniemi).

Arguing about the thing abstractly related to your world views seems kind of pointless when you could just argue about how individuality should be encouraged or expressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, tor said:

You two are funny. I am deliberately being mean here so neither party can claim I am biased.

Cobran wants to use global warming to show that politicians / scientists / anyone claiming to know better than him are corrupt arseholes beneath him.

Clown wants to use global warming to show that people with beliefs that can't be swayed by his better argument are idiots beneath him.

The actual argument, to me, seems to be about how we progress society. If they were sci fi readers Cobran I am guessing would be an Asimov/Heinlein fan and Clown would be a charles stross fan (but secretly prefer Rajaniemi).

Arguing about the thing abstractly related to your world views seems kind of pointless when you could just argue about how individuality should be encouraged or expressed.

People are entitled to their own belief system. But when it gets imposed on others and worst of all, at great cost to the general public, it is a different matter altogether.

There is no irrefutable evidence for the drastic actions taken. I expect the current version of the theory - 'climate change' (the previous 'globull warming' has already been debunked as its predictions have failed to materialise) will go down with the Ice Age theory that gripped scientists 40 years ago and Eugenics over a century ago. But people will pay much more for this one and I'm betting nobody will be held to account when it is debunked.

As I've said before, we don't have the choice of not paying for stupids' stupidity.

Alberta farmers fret over recent snowfalls that delayed harvest, damaged crops  - officially still summer there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now